medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2017, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2017; 31 (6)

How to select a prosthesis for a primary hip replacement? Minimum acceptable survival: results of a consensus of experts

Bautista M, Muskus M, Bonilla G, Mieth K, Gutiérrez C, Llinás A

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 292-299
PDF size: 209.60 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: One of the most critical points in the planning of hip replacement surgeries is the selection of the implant, since its survival significantly impacts the patients’ health. However, the ideal survival time that an implant must prove to be selected has not been defined. The objective of this consensus is to define minimum performance standards for the selection of conventional primary hip replacement prosthesis. Material and methods: The consensus was carried out using the methodology of ‘nominal group’. This included: 1. A review of the available evidence and the issues to be evaluated, 2. Meeting for the vote and discussion, 3. Quantitative statistical analysis with median (M) and interquartile range (IQR) and qualitative one with proportions of the results to generate recommendations. Results: The primary source of information for prosthesis selection (M: 8; IQR: 7-9), choice in the event of conflicting evidence (M: 8; IQR: 7-9), or limited evidence in the literature (M: 7; IQR: 4.75-825) should be national registries. The minimum acceptable follow-up is 10 years (M: 9; IQR: 8-9) and the minimum acceptable survival is 90% at 10 years (M: 8; IQR: 5-8.5). Discussion: According to these results, the consensus of experts proposed that the selection of the implant for conventional primary hip replacement must be based on the information published in the national registries and that the prosthesis must have a minimum follow-up of 10 years and show a minimum survival of 90%.


REFERENCES

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C: The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007; 370(9597): 1508-19.

  2. Kumar N, Arora GN, Datta B: Bearing surfaces in hip replacement —Evolution and likely future. Med J Armed Forces India. 2014; 70(4): 371-6.

  3. Singh G, Meyer H, Ruetschi M, Chamaon K, Feuerstein B, Lohmann CH: Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties: a page in orthopedic history? J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013; 101(11): 3320-6.

  4. Blunn G: (iii) Bearing surfaces. Orthop Trauma. 2013; 27(2): 85-92.

  5. Long M, Rack HJ: Titanium alloys in total joint replacement —a materials science perspective. Biomaterials. 1998; 19(18): 1621-39.

  6. Kandala NB, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Sutcliffe P, Crowther MJ, Grove A, et al: Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence. BMJ. 2015; 350: h756.

  7. Mellon SJ, Liddle AD, Pandit H: Hip replacement: landmark surgery in modern medical history. Maturitas. 2013; 75(3): 221-6.

  8. Pabinger C, Bridgens A, Berghold A, Wurzer P, Boehler N, Labek G: Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty: comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades. Hip Int. 2015; 25(5): 394-401.

  9. Barr CJ, Barbalace RJ, Wessinger SJ, Bragdon CR, Kwon YM, Malchau H: Validation of a hospital-based joint registry: quantification of errors and maximizing utility. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(10): 1766-71.

  10. Labek G, Janda W, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Böhler N: Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(2): 157-63.

  11. Boyer P, Boutron I, Ravaud P: Scientific production and impact of national registers: the example of orthopaedic national registers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011; 19(7): 858-63.

  12. Rothwell PM: External validity of randomised controlled trials: «to whom do the results of this trial apply?». Lancet. 2005; 365(9453): 82-93.

  13. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Mowat F, Saleh K, Dybvik E, et al. Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89 Suppl 3: 144-51.

  14. NICE: Total hip replacement and resurfacing artroplasty for end-stage arthritis of the hip [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta304/resources/

  15. Preparación de la versión preliminar de la Guía de Atención Integral para el cálculo de primas en salud y UPC.

  16. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 12th Annual Report 2015. 2015.

  17. Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Annual Report 2015. 2015.

  18. Rogmark C, Rolfson O: Swedish hip arthroplasty register. 2012.

  19. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Report 2010. 2010.

  20. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH: Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984; 74(9): 979-83.

  21. Persson U, Persson M, Malchau H: The economics of preventing revisions in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999; 70(2): 163-9.

  22. Bozic KJ, Kamath AF, Ong K, Lau E, Kurtz S, Chan V, et al: Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(6): 2131-8.

  23. Arts DG, De Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ: Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002; 9(6): 600-11.

  24. Madsen M, Davidsen M, Rasmussen S, Abildstrom SZ, Osler M: The validity of the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in routine statistics: a comparison of mortality and hospital discharge data with the Danish MONICA registry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56(2): 124-30.

  25. Jones J, Hunter D: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995; 311(7001): 376-80.

  26. Chan EY, Blyth FM, Nairn L, Fransen M: Acute postoperative pain following hospital discharge after total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013; 21(9): 1257-63.

  27. Donell S, Deane K, Swift L, Barton G, Balls P, Darrah C, et al: Patient directed self-management of pain (PaDSMaP) compared to treatment as usual following total knee replacement: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012; 13: 204.

  28. Bozic KJ, Chiu VW, Slover JD, Immerman I, Kahn JG: Health state utility in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(6 Suppl): 129-132.e1-2.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com